On 2025-07-01 the U.S. Senate voted 99–1 to remove a proposed 10-year moratorium on state AI regulation from a major tax and spending bill, preserving states’ ability to pass and enforce AI-specific laws after a revised funding-limitation version also failed; that decision sustains regulatory uncertainty and keeps states functioning as policy “laboratories” (e.g., California’s SB-243 and state deepfake/impersonation laws). The outcome matters for customers, revenue and operations because fragmented state rules will shape product requirements, compliance costs, liability and market access across AI, software engineering, fintech, biotech and quantum applications. Immediate priorities: monitor federal bills and state law developments, track standards and agency rulemaking (FTC, FCC, ISO/NIST/IEEE), build compliance and auditability capabilities, design flexible architectures, and engage regulators and public comment processes.

In the past two weeks the field of agentic-AI governance crystallized around new technical and policy levers: two research frameworks—AAGATE (NIST AI RMF‐aligned, released late Oct 2025) and AURA (mid‐Oct 2025)—aim to embed threat modeling, measurement, continuous assurance and risk scoring into agentic systems, while regulators have accelerated action: the U.S. FDA convened on therapy chatbots on Nov 5, 2025; Texas passed TRAIGA (HB 149), effective 2026‐01‐01, limiting discrimination claims to intent and creating a test sandbox; and the EU AI Act phases begin Aug 2, 2025 (GPAI), Aug 2, 2026 (high‐risk) and Aug 2, 2027 (products), even as codes and harmonized standards are delayed into late 2025. This matters because firms face compliance uncertainty, shifting liability and operational monitoring demands; near‐term priorities are finalizing EU standards and codes, FDA rulemaking, and operationalizing state sandboxes.

Between July and September 2025 the US reshaped its AI policy: on July 1 the Senate voted 99–1 to remove a provision that would have imposed a 10‐year ban on state AI regulation, preserving state authority; on July 23 the White House unveiled “Winning the AI Race: America’s AI Action Plan” (Executive Order 14179) with more than 90 federal actions across three pillars—accelerating innovation, building AI infrastructure, and international/security priorities—including an export strategy, streamlined data‐center permitting, deregulatory reviews, and procurement standards requiring models “free from ideological bias”; and on Sept. 29 California enacted SB 53, mandating public disclosure of safety protocols, whistleblower protections, and 15‐day reporting of “critical safety incidents.” These moves shift influence from federal bans to federal incentives and procurement, create new compliance and contracting risks for companies, and warrant immediate monitoring of Action Plan implementation, permitting reforms, procurement rules, state responses, and definitions of “ideological bias.”

On 6 November 2025 (UTC), UNESCO adopted global standards for neurotechnology comprising over 100 recommendations that introduce the term “neural data” and require protections to safeguard mental privacy, freedom of thought and to prevent intrusive uses such as “dream-time marketing.” The move responds to rapid advances in AI-driven neural interfaces and consumer devices that read brain activity or track eye movements and follows legislative activity such as the U.S. MIND Act and state neural-data privacy laws. The standards aim to set international norms across medical, commercial and civil-rights domains, elevating regulatory scrutiny of devices marketed for wellness or productivity; recommendations are nonbinding, so implementation depends on national and regional regulators. Expect governments, particularly in the U.S. and Europe, to refine laws and for companies to prepare for increased regulatory risk.

On Nov. 12, 2025 EU Commissioner Henna Virkkunen said the European Commission will present a digital simplification package on Nov. 19, 2025 proposing AI Act amendments to ease compliance—potentially including a one‐year grace period delaying enforcement of transparency fines until August 2027—after the AI Act entered into force in August 2024 and with high‐risk rules due August 2026; the goal is legal certainty for firms juggling overlapping rules like the DSA/DMA. In the U.S., the FDA’s Digital Health Advisory Committee met Nov. 5–7, 2025 to consider how generative AI therapy tools should be regulated amid state bans/limits (e.g., Illinois, Utah, Nevada) with civil penalties up to $10,000. Separately, ten foundations pledged $500 million over five years via Humanity AI, with grants starting early 2026. Immediate actions to watch: the Nov. 19 EU package and evolving U.S. federal/state rules on AI mental‐health tools.